Mr KERR (3:21 PM) —Mr Speaker, if I might, by way of a question to you, I will pursue the matter you have just raised. You will recall that on Tuesday I raised and drew to your attention the remarks that I believed had been directed personally towards the member for Jagajaga, and you responded in that instance by indicating, both to the House and later to me privately, that you thought they had been directed at a group of members—the Labor Party collectively. In a like manner, when the member for Melbourne raised a point of order with you earlier today regarding the use of the word ‘hypocrite’—a word which I think would be regarded as offensive by all members—your response was that it was not directed at an individual.

In the interests of consistency, are there measures you could take with respect to the Speaker’s panel and the Deputy Speaker so that we can have a circumstance whereby abusive remarks directed by government members and ministers at question time—which are very public proceeds of this House—are not dealt with inconsistently with circumstances where, in other debates, members are ejected from the House for pursuing precisely the same matters in the same manner that you did not take any action on in the proceedings during question time?

Might I also raise directly the matter that was referred to by the member for Calare. I draw your attention to the debate on 22 May 1996, when the member for Page made an allegation of bribery against all members of the Labor Party. I find the inconsistency in these matters very disturbing and I would like you, Mr Speaker, to consider whether there is some manner in which consistency can be obtained.

The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Denison. Can I respond to the last part of his question first. I think the matters were covered in my response to the member for Calare. Clearly, as I pointed out then, it is more than just reading the Hansard; it is a question of the approach that the occupant of the chair takes at the time. On the question that he raises of using what he considers to be offensive language against an individual, certainly it should be withdrawn where it is directed at an individual, but I would respond to two parts of his question. The first one refers to what the Prime Minister said today: I believe he actually said the words ‘hypocritical actions’ but did not label an individual. The second point, about the earlier comments about the word ‘xenophobic’, is the same thing: I think ‘xenophobic approach’ was the phrase used. It was not used against an individual. I refer the honourable member for Denison back to the answer that I gave to the member for Calare, because I did canvass the points that he raised in some detail.